Aiding Egypt

THERE’S A great deal of hand-wringing in Washington on how the United States should respond to the Egyptian army’s ouster of President Mohammed Morsi.

There have been calls for the United States to end its foreign aid to Egypt, most of which goes to the army. On the other hand there have been calls to continue our aid, and there are good reasons to do just that.

Morsi was elected by popular vote after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. But no sooner did he take office than Morsi began eroding Egyptians’ rights and setting the stage to create an Islamic state a la Iran.

As former UN Ambassador John Bolton put it this week in The Wall Street Journal, Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood is not a normal political party as Westerners understand that term. It is an armed ideology — a militia that fires on its opponents and burns down churches

So what about our aid to Egypt now that the army is in charge? It’s in America’s interest to have an Egyptian government committed to upholding the Camp David Accords with Israel, which has been the foundation of our Middle East policy since 1979.

The Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981 for negotiating Camp David, and during his presidential campaign Morsi hinted he would abrogate that agreement. But Camp David has been an important lynchpin for keeping the peace between Egypt, the largest Arab nation, and Israel, the only truly democratic state in the Middle East.

Maintaining Camp David also is important for keeping the Suez Canal open. Each year about 30 percent of oil supplies pass through the canal, and Mr. Bolton believes the Brotherhood would be tempted to close that international bypass, thus bringing economic chaos to a Europe that already has enough economic woes.

While it might be tempting to allow the Gulf states to fill in for American aid should we suspend it, America would damage its ties to Egypt, not only the military but its tourism industry upon which so many Egyptians depend on for their livelihoods.